BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.58 of 2016
Date of Institution : 15.02.2016
Date of Decision : 04.05.2017.
Krishan Lal son of Shri Gauranditta, resident of vill. Chamal, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/s Mehta Insecticides, 131, New Anaj Mandi, Sirsa-125055 through its Authorized/ Responsible person.
2. Du Point India Private Limited, Regd. Office, 7th Floor, Tower-C, DLF Cyber Greren, Sector 25-A, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………..PRESIDING MEMBER
SH.MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ….MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.P. Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief is that he is an agriculturist having six acres of land as per his respective share out of the land comprised in Khewat No.657, 692 and 777 situated in village Chamal, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa and is maintaining his family and earning his livelihood. He had sowed paddy crop quality 1401 in six acres of land and spent about Rs.20,000/- per acre for maintaining his crop. On 3.10.2015, he approached op no.1 and put forth his requirement of pesticides for six acres of land and also requested to supply best quality of pesticides, so that the crop may be protected from the attack of insects and disease. The op no.1 supplied one liter pesticides named as Galileo bearing batch No.044 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per liter and also Galileo 240 ml. bearing batch no.043 for an amount of Rs.2500/- and thus charged total sum of Rs.7500/- vide bill No.46474 dated 3.10.2015. It is further averred that complainant sprayed the pesticides on his paddy crop as per the directions/guidelines given by op no.1 on behalf of op no.2 and adopted all the measures for the spray. After few days of spray, he was astonished to see that all “Ballia” have been ruined/ dried on account of attack of the disease on the crop because there was no effect of spray of pesticides on the crop and as such all the crop has been destroyed and suffered damages. The complainant immediately approached Deputy Director Agriculture Officer and on his application, Quality Control Inspector, Sirsa and Agro Analysis Officer, Sirsa inspected his filed and they after thorough inspection reported the loss to the paddy crop to the extent of 70% approximately and this has been happened only because of sub standard/adulterated pesticides supplied and sold by ops. It is further averred that he has suffered huge loss of Rs.four lacs as he was expecting yield of 70 mond per acre. The team of doctors from the company of op no.2 also paid visit at the field of complainant and they also detected 70% loss on account of non effect of the pesticides. The complainant approached the ops time and again to pay compensation to him but to no effect and they have bluntly refused to admit his claim. He also got issued legal notice upon ops vide postal receipts dated 29.12.2015 but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, the opposite party no.1 in written statement while raising certain preliminary objections has asserted that complainant has not mentioned the stage of disease at the time of products application and damage was not due to application of fungicide product and was due to pre disease. On the information from farmer, departmental authority took the sample of Galileo and same was passed. No field inspection was carried out in the presence of answering op and that dealer sold the product in sealed and original packing. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. The opposite party no.2 in its separate written statement also took raising certain preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, maintainability, cause of action and suppression of material facts etc. It has also been submitted that as per the instructions mentioned in the leaflet, Galileo is required to be used twice during the life cycle of crop and use rate for Galileo is 240 ml mixed with 200 liters of water per acre. This appears to be a case of insufficient use of pesticide to the tune of50% as complainant has confirmed purchasing and using only 1.48 liters of Galileo which is sufficient for single application on 6 acres of land, however to spray on 6 acres, complainant was required to use approximate 2.96 liters of Galileo. The complainant has also nowhere mentioned the volume of water used by him to spray the pesticide on the crop. It has been further submitted that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Act. The report of Deputy Agriculture Officer mentioned in the complaint cannot be considered as expert evidence as no representative of the answering op was joined at the time of inspection. Even no notice has been sent calling upon the answering op to appoint any of its representative at the time of inspection. Thus, the report is in violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be considered as conclusive evidence and liable to be rejected. With these averments, dismissal of the complaint has been sought.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Kashmir Chand Ex.CW2/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 Ex.C1, copy of khasra girdawari for the year 2014-2015 Ex.C2, copy of application Ex.C3, copy of letter Ex.C4, copy of inspection report Ex.C4/A, copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1, copies of documents Ex.R2, Ex.R3, affidavit of op no.1 Ex.R4 and copy of laboratory test report Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he is having six acres of agricultural land and sowed paddy crop quality 1401 in his six acres of land in the year 2015 but the copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013 produced by the complainant as Ex.C1 reveals that he is owner of 3 acres 2 kanal and 12 marlas land. The complainant has not mentioned specific Khasra number and killa number in his complaint. Further, the copy of khasra girdawari for the Sawni crop 2014 in which sowing of paddy crop is mentioned is not for the relevant period but relates to year 2014 whereas the complainant is claiming damage to his crop after 3.10.2015 when he used the pesticides in question. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that he is owner of six acres of land and also failed to prove that in the year 2015 paddy crop was sowed by him. Therefore, the basic requirement of the case is not proved by the complainant.
7. Further, the inspection report conducted by the Officers of the Agriculture Department, Sirsa relied upon by complainant as Ex.C4/A is not reliable and it appears that same has been prepared only on the basis of the statement of the complainant without knowing the fact that the complainant is actually owner of six acres of land or not. The officers of the agriculture department have also not mentioned the khasra and killa numbers of the land which was allegedly inspected by them. From report Ex.C4/A the identity of the land can not be established and such report does not carry any evidentiary value. In an authority of our Hon’ble Haryana State Commission in case Narender Kumar Vs. M/s Arora Trading Company and other 2007(2) CLT 683 it was observed by their Lordship that when the killa and khasra numbers of land which was inspected by the Agriculture Department officer had not been mentioned in the report, the report cannot be taken into account to support the stand of the complainant. As such no finding can be recorded in favour of the complainant simply on the basis of a self serving affidavit when there is no evidence with respect to the less germination.
8. Further, loss, if any, occurred to the complainant due to damage of his paddy crop cannot be said on account of spray of pesticides because the officers of the Agriculture Department took the sample of pesticides of the same batch and sent the same to the laboratory for analysis. The ops in this regard have placed on file analysis report Ex.R5 wherein remarks have been given that the sample conforms to the relevant specification in the test conducted. As such no fault in the pesticides in question cannot be attributed at all and it can be said that complainant has not used the pesticides as per instructions mentioned in the leaflet.
9. Further more, as per letter of Director of Agriculture, Haryana, Panchkula dated 3.1.2002, issued to all the Deputy Directors in the State, it has been directed by the Director Agriculture that fields of complainant farmers will be inspected by a committee comprising two officers of Agriculture Department, one representative of concerned seed agency and Scientists of KGK/ KVK, HAU. However, no notice was issued to the opposite parties before spot inspection and as such the report is also defective on this count. So, report obtained by complainant without notice to ops cannot be relied upon.
10. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, complainant has failed to prove his case. The authority relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in case titled as Dharam Pal & Sons and others Vs. Som Parkash, II (2014) CPJ 703 is not applicable in this case in view of the circumstances of the present case as discussed above. Accordingly the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 04.05.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
